based upon faith, presumably due to some evidence
Yes, and the evidence is twofold. First, it is the scriptural evidence (like the Bereans). I do not see anything in the scripture that the Catholic Church does not teach, -- as opposed to things some interpretations insinuate contradict the Church, while the Church has its plausible explanation that fits the context better. Second is the guidance of the Holy Ghost manifest in continuing survival and adaptibility of both the Catholic Church and her Eastern sister Orthodox Church. That is contrary to the spirit of the times so perfectly catered to by the Protestantism. No other pre-medieval institution survives today in such historical authenticity. One coming close is the Roman Republic, but you win no arguments today in the American Senate by saying "Romans did it" or "Cicero wrote it". An analogous argument today in the Catholic Chruch has not lost any potency -- it usually wins.
Rome is the OTC
OTC is Old Testament Church? We don't claim it. The Catholic Priesthood is Melchizedek, not Levi. We claim provenance with the pregnancy of Mary in some mystical sense, and the Pentecost in the Upper Room in the formal sense. The "OTS" is at best a type, such as Abel, or the baptismal types in the Flood, the Exodus and Joshua, or David impersonating Elizabeth and the leaping John with the Tora scroll.
in no place do we see the church being promised that it would be infallible whenever it universally spoken on faith and morals, in union with the Pope, while Jesus reproof of magisterial presumption teaching things which were contrary to Scripture, some of which they could have argued was derived from it, argues against Rome's presumption in doing likewise
We see the promise of not failing in Matthew 16:18, in Peter having the prayer of Christ to confirm his brethren in Luke 22:31-32, -- the promise made even more substantial because it contains the admission of human frailty of all Pertine successors, starting with Peter himself. As I admit, were I to see a scripture that is in contradiction to the teaching of the Church, that would possibly destroy my faith, -- but it would by the same token destroy my faith in the Scripture also, because one cannot have faith in the product while not trusting the deliverer of the product. But I do not see such contradiction, and I sure asked you Protestants to show it to me. I see perceived contradictions, but nothing I cannot see with a Catholic eye as a harmony.
insofar as belief that the Roman Catholic magisterium “eliminates the doubts, confusion and misunderstanding which inevitably results from individual interpretations” (see below) this is a rather specious claim, as [7 points follow]
Well, it eliminates doubt where the Magisterium desires to eliminate doubt. For example, one who does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (belief coming form the Holy Scripture) or efficacy of prayer to Mary and the saints (Holy Tradition) or the intrinsic evilhood of abortion (Living Magisterium) cannot make a reasonable mistake of being Catholic. Where there is leeway is because the Apostolic Church does not intend to have a single determination (e.g. what language to use in the liturgy, whether married men can be priests, whether the donkey literally spoke to Balaam, whether divinely authored evolution is a possibility). Both certainty and incertainty serve the same purpose, to lead men away from error and allow healthy exchange of ideas at the same time.
the cult-like requirement of implicit trust in a teaching magisterium, which in times past implied loss of salvation by failure to do so
It still implies a danger of losing one's salvation. However, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is often misunderstood by Protestants because of their Faith Alone instincts. We are judged by our works (Rm 2:6-10, Mt 25:31-46). One dissenting from the Living Church of the Living God endangers his salvation because of the sustenance that the sacrament of the Church would have given him. It is not a direct, or automatic result of his dissent. For example, a Protestant cut off from the living water of the Church still can read the scripture and be inspired to his feat of faith. If he follows the call to holy life, he will be saved and die Catholic.
a highly presumptuous stretch
So test the presumtion. I have not seen a verse that cannot be easily and in context explained, again, barring attempts at explainign the miraculous. Many tried, on this thread alone.
Catholics come in close to last in Bible reading, and substantially disagree with her and each other
You are inserting a Protestant yardstick to get a Protestantism-favoring response. The Catholic may not read the scripture because they do not get the essentials of the faith from the scripture alone. They hear the scripture in a larger percentage than in a typical Protestant sermon in the course of the Mass; they know the lessons of the scripture. The Catholics are not trained to deliver chapter and verse prooftexts. That skill is a sport, not knowledge. When a Catholic, such as the Catholic Answers crew, or even yours truly, gives the idea of learning scriptural prooftexting some attention, we do just fine. There is not a verse in the New Testament that in context contraverts any Catholic doctrine. Whether many Catholics cannot prove it is not the point: the Priotestants, as I demonstrate daily, cannot prooftext their point either, and they sure try.
Catholic unity is based upon confidence in the church itself
Yes. Which stands in stark contrast to the Protestant unity based on a few prooftexts from Pauline epistles that do not say what you pretend they say and came from the same Church in the first place.
I'll probably have the stamina for this first post, but not for the second. Understand that often in your posts I agree to much, so if I do not respond to some passage that is because I do not find enough to disagree upon.
Stamina is an issue here as well, and i am glad if there is some agreement and dispelling of misconceptions or misunderstanding.
based upon faith, presumably due to some evidence
Yes, and the evidence is twofold. First, it is the scriptural evidence (like the Bereans). I do not see anything in the scripture that the Catholic Church does not teach, -- as opposed to things some interpretations insinuate contradict the Church, while the Church has its plausible explanation that fits the context better.
“I do not see” and “plausible” are expected, as first, to be a faithful Catholics, you are not to doubt her infallible definitions or seek to ascertain whether such are true.
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question." “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit..he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature.” “Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense?” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter xxiii. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York)
“...having once found the true Church, ...having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all.”
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“...outside the pale of Rome there is not a scrap of additional truth of Revelation to be found.”
“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-----questions of religion-----to an authority located in Rome.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?"
“..our act of confidence and of blind obedience highly honoring to Almighty God,..”
— Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914
In addition, Scripture is disallowed by Roman Catholicism as the means to ascertain truth, and her infallible definitions do not render her reasoning and Scripture arguments to be infallible, but only the definition, so you really do not need to do as the Bereans did, according to Rome that is.
Second is the guidance of the Holy Ghost manifest in continuing survival and adaptibility of both the Catholic Church and her Eastern sister Orthodox Church. That is contrary to the spirit of the times so perfectly catered to by the Protestantism. No other pre-medieval institution survives today in such historical authenticity.
And yet the primary Orthodox disagreement is a fundamental one, the very primacy and infallibility of the pope upon which Rome rises and falls. As for historicity, other religions are even older, while the Lord Jesus said to let the tares remain with the wheat until harvest. Thus the endurance argument does not establish who the OTC is. Moreover, i already refuted the idea that formal historic descent is determinative or a basis for authenticity, while Biblically substantiated evidential faith is.
One coming close is the Roman Republic, but you win no arguments today in the American Senate by saying "Romans did it" or "Cicero wrote it". An analogous argument today in the Catholic Chruch has not lost any potency -- it usually wins.
“Usually wins??” Only as defined by her, who has lost her vast secular power (except for a few guards) and forgeries were exposed, both of which it owed much of its power to, and is left with largely liberal adherents, while she regularly loses members to evangelicals, as well as lawsuits due to her degree of homosexual priests.
Rome is the OTC
OTC is Old Testament Church? We don't claim it.
No, OTC means One True Church. Sorry; i like to abbreviate terms i often use and i presumed you understood, but it is good you asked.
in no place do we see the church being promised that it would be infallible whenever it universally spoken on faith and morals, in union with the Pope, while Jesus reproof of magisterial presumption teaching things which were contrary to Scripture, some of which they could have argued was derived from it, argues against Rome's presumption in doing likewise
We see the promise of not failing in Matthew 16:18, in Peter having the prayer of Christ to confirm his brethren in Luke 22:31-32, -- the promise made even more substantial because it contains the admission of human frailty of all Pertine successors, starting with Peter himself.
No, that is called a extrapolation, as what you see is a promise made to an individual, not to posterity, and whom Scripture does not establish as being the rock upon which the church was built, but which is one of the most abundantly substantiated truths as concerns Christ being it. (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Mk. 16:4; Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16)
Nor is there any successor for an apostle except Judas, which had to be a personal disciple of Christ, and which was to keep the original number of the foundational apostles. (cf. Rv. 21:14; Eph. 2:20) And that choice was by casting lots, not voting. But when James the brother of John died (Mt. 10:2; Acts 12:2) no successor is mentioned, nor a provision made for selecting one as was made for Judas. It is incongruous that the Holy Spirit of truth would not have made that manifest if it were to be so, while the criteria for ordaining elders/bishops (same office, and not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) was faith and character, (1Tim. 3:1-7) which would exclude many papal successors from even being church members. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
As I admit, were I to see a scripture that is in contradiction to the teaching of the Church, that would possibly destroy my faith, -- but it would by the same token destroy my faith in the Scripture also, because one cannot have faith in the product while not trusting the deliverer of the product. But I do not see such contradiction, and I sure asked you Protestants to show it to me. I see perceived contradictions, but nothing I cannot see with a Catholic eye as a harmony.
The very idea that preservation of the faith requires an AIM is a contradiction, as it did not for a couple thousand of years before Christ, and the majority of the Bible we now have was recognized as Scripture without one as well.
As for the “Catholic eye, you are being honest, which is good, but its credence means little when one considers the restrictions it requires as state above.
insofar as belief that the Roman Catholic magisterium “eliminates the doubts, confusion and misunderstanding which inevitably results from individual interpretations” (see below) this is a rather specious claim, as [7 points follow]
Well, it eliminates doubt where the Magisterium desires to eliminate doubt.
So as very little of the Bible has been infallibly defined (7 verses according to Catholic Answers) and confusion continues even over how many pronouncements are infallible, and some disagreement in mind is allowed in other teachings, we must presume it does not see eliminating substantial doubt a priority. And you won't get far in any most evangelical denominations if you disagree with fundamentals either, and historically those who have were marked as heretics.
For example, one who does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (belief coming form the Holy Scripture) or efficacy of prayer to Mary and the saints (Holy Tradition) or the intrinsic evilhood of abortion (Living Magisterium) cannot make a reasonable mistake of being Catholic. Where there is leeway is because the Apostolic Church does not intend to have a single determination (e.g. what language to use in the liturgy, whether married men can be priests, whether the donkey literally spoke to Balaam, whether divinely authored evolution is a possibility).
There is much more, and allegorizing historical accounts, or counting them as fables, which approved Roman scholars do, and disallowing the law being given by the hand of Moses, is contrary to how the Bible interprets itself, and this and more is contrary to her claim to be the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Both certainty and incertainty serve the same purpose, to lead men away from error and allow healthy exchange of ideas at the same time.
This is a rare statement from a Catholic, as their argument denigrates uncertainty and promotes Roman Catholicism as the solution to such, but which is inflated. And both Rome and evangelicals have their fundamentals of basically required beliefs, and contentions against cults, while allowing varying degrees of a disagreement in other things, so the real question is what is the best means of achieving unity: implicit trust in an church office or by the Biblical means of “manifestation of the truth,” and seeking to be like a Berean and continue to use their means?
the cult-like requirement of implicit trust in a teaching magisterium, which in times past implied loss of salvation by failure to do so
It still implies a danger of losing one's salvation. However, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is often misunderstood by Protestants because of their Faith Alone instincts.
No, EENS is yet disputed among Roman Catholics and Vatican Two is in contrast to the most historical understand of it, but Rome lost her secular teeth needed to carry out her animosity against men like Huss, Tyndale, etc.
We are judged by our works (Rm 2:6-10, Mt 25:31-46).
And rightly so, as how can faith or love be judged except by what it does?
One dissenting from the Living Church of the Living God endangers his salvation because of the sustenance that the sacrament of the Church would have given him.
And Mormons say the like, but implicit trusting man is what endangers one salvation. Only the Scriptures are declared to be wholly inspired of God and thus assuredly infallible, and the appeal to them within it presumes seekers of truth will be led by them. As for the “fulness of grace, more than one Roman Catholic priest seeks to convert evangelicals to enliven their pews, and those who convert to evangelism typically do so because the lack of life in the typical Roman Catholic church, though it presents a larger visible form. "For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. " (Ecclesiastes 9:4)
Though i myself had been raised and had practiced the faith as part of a very devout family, I became truly born again while still Catholic at age 25,, and remained within Rome for 6 years seeking to serve God and find life there (the closest being in the charismatic movement), going to mass weekly and other meetings, and i know the vast difference between being Biblically born again and being a Catholic in good standing. But i do not harbor any personal bitterness toward Roman Catholicism, yet i cannot justify some of her official teachings or what she overall effectually conveys. I must seek to be in heart and life in conformity with Scripture, though i come short, but Rome will not admit that she does in key doctrines and asserts that she is the OTC, based upon her own authority.
It is not a direct, or automatic result of his dissent. For example, a Protestant cut off from the living water of the Church still can read the scripture and be inspired to his feat of faith. If he follows the call to holy life, he will be saved and die Catholic.
Sorry, i found and find it to be overall more stagnant than living water. What typical passes for religion in Rome is perfunctory professions, and areas where she predominates are typically more liberal and exhibit spiritual complacency.
The reason Catholics remain Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.
They are not to doubt Rome in the first place, while your invariable conclusion is a highly presumptuous stretch.
So test the presumtion. I have not seen a verse that cannot be easily and in context explained, again, barring attempts at explainign the miraculous. Many tried, on this thread alone.
You made the assertion, now you must prove it. And again, as shown above, you are not to examine objectively what Rome has defined, so to be convinced otherwise requires disobedience on your part, which is a cultic bondage. And if they are not to examine both sides of the question to do so, the conclusion of such is dubious. While formal studies consistently show Catholics last in Bible reading, with one study (Rasmussen) also showing 44% of Catholics rarely or never read the Bible (apart from church), in all my years interacting with Catholics, and after being an active one who even evangelized then, i have found the typical cause the average Roman Catholic remained so that they were even close to acting like a Berean, but was due to cultural bond, and you admitted that was the bases for Catholic unity.
Catholics come in close to last in Bible reading, and substantially disagree with her and each other
You are inserting a Protestant yardstick to get a Protestantism-favoring response. The Catholic may not read the scripture because they do not get the essentials of the faith from the scripture alone. They hear the scripture in a larger percentage than in a typical Protestant sermon in the course of the Mass; they know the lessons of the scripture.
The devotion to reading Scripture is not a Protestant yardstick, but Biblical fruit, which texts like Ps. 119 encourage, and what you are declining into is sophistry. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle, and it has already been established that historically Rome did not encourage Bible literacy among the laity, and even discouraged it. Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. Also “at mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) While that is increased since before Vatican Two, more than one Roman Catholic apologist here will tell you that “Any way you cut it, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.”
The Catholics are not trained to deliver chapter and verse prooftexts. That skill is a sport, not knowledge.
It can be often seen they are not, but it is not a sport. Chapters are not the issue, but proof texting is, and the Lord and His disciples were good at proving their claims by Scripture. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Lk. 24:27, cf., 44). “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” “ ...he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” (Acts 17:2; 18:23; 28:23)
When a Catholic, such as the Catholic Answers crew, or even yours truly, gives the idea of learning scriptural prooftexting some attention, we do just fine.
No, they may try, as cults do, and which often is an exhibition those who “wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction,” (2Pt. 3:16), even then Rome's use of such is often treated as superfluous, and as a condescension to Protestantism.
There is not a verse in the New Testament that in context contraverts any Catholic doctrine. Whether many Catholics cannot prove it is not the point: the Priotestants, as I demonstrate daily, cannot prooftext their point either, and they sure try.
That you cannot find one is not surprising as you cannot examine things objectively without being disobedient, as per statements above, while the manner of extrapolation needed to get the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and Assumption, praying to the departed, mandated Priestly celibacy (except some converts), more resembles the work of cults. That is because these do not depend upon Biblical warrant, but that nebulous source called oral tradition, including Purgatory: “Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Appendix II, Article 2) And what such really rely upon is the self-proclaimed infallible status of her magisterium, by which she effectively adds to the canon, and such unwarranted teaching contradicts it by adding such to His words. (Prv. 30:6) And in so doing Rome she can and must define “ unanimous consent of the fathers” to be much less than what it should mean.
Just one example is that you will not find any example of prayers in the Bible or the description of the believers relationship with God, or anything in instructions on prayer that has anyone (except pagans) praying to anyone else in Heaven except the Lord, (not “our mother who art in heaven,”) or that warrants it, any nor any insufficiency in Christ that would advantage it, and is not like examples of any interaction between created heavenly beings with earthly ones, and is contrary to the relationship one has with God by faith in Christ, in which a believer has immediate access into the holy of holies by faith in Christ, who is uniquely able to help the believer, and ever lives to make intercession for them. (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 2:17,18; 4:14-16; 7:25; 10:19-22)
Catholic unity is based upon confidence in the church itself
Yes.
And the reliance upon Rome and her self-professed power disallows the faithful from allowing themselves to see things contrary to her, which is akin to cults. And again, in reality Rome's claim to authority rests upon self-proclamation of her supreme authority, not Biblical manifestation of the truth.
Which stands in stark contrast to the Protestant unity based on a few prooftexts from Pauline epistles that do not say what you pretend they say and came from the same Church in the first place.
In reality, evangelical unity is much based upon their transformational relationship with Christ due to conversion by faith in the gospel of grace, versus a church-based unity due to teaching they are Christians due to infant (typically) baptism. But your judgment must be dismissed as you cannot concede that anything in opposition to Rome's official teaching can be true, nor is your source argument valid. I myself try to examine claims objectively and let the truth led where it may, and try to hold things in suspension that i am not sure of and resist just following the party line.
But what is most clear and critical is, as described before, that man realizes his desperate need for salvation in the light of God's infinite holiness and his perfect justice, in which man is utterly unable to escape his just damnation or merit eternal life, and so with a repentant heart he must cast all his faith upon the Son sent by the Father to save sinners by His sinless shed blood and righteousness. And thus trusting in this risen Lord and Savior, he realizes immediate and ongoing effects in heart and life, which correspond to the claims of Scripture, including trials and persecution, as He follows His Lord by faith, looking unto Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith. To God be the glory.
And this is my burden and main reason for my opposition to mere forms or fallacies which are a substitute for it, while i must seek to be a better “living Bible” in heart word and deed that would promote such conviction and conversion.